Kasich Earns His Ticket

He's the least hawkish establishment candidate left. But can he beat Jeb and Rubio again?

I spent election night in New Hampshire with the Kasich campaign. Obviously this was an important night for the country, with more decisive victories than I had anticipated for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Taken together, their wins signal a dramatic rejection of neoliberalism and neoconservatism, the shared ideology of the current American establishment.

It’s not an anti-government message—both Sanders and Trump very much believe in government. It’s an anti-what-the-government-has-been-doing-for-the-past-20-years message. It’s a rejection of the Iraq war, opposed by both the winning candidates, (and supported by all the others), and of a Wall Street-dominated economic system. For the Trump voters, it’s also a rejection of high levels of immigration and a free trade regime that has decimated America’s manufacturing base. Sanders harkens to an older radical tradition, deeply rooted in the country, supposedly vanquished once and for all by the neoliberalism embodied by the Clintons.

I like both of the winning candidates, and relish how much they discomfit the current establishment. Everyone seems to like Bernie Sanders at least a little, but boy does Trump ever worry them. Driving back from the Kasich election night party in Concord I heard Rachel Maddow on the radio. She is totally freaked out that a large number of Americans want to reestablish control of their nation’s borders. I wonder why she has such difficulty understanding this, I really do. Xenophobic nativism she labels it. Generally a cool customer, she is unable to hide her hatred.

I’m far from persuaded that either Trump or Sanders will be elected president—Sanders because his views are too far left for the country, Trump because of his temperament and relative lack of political experience.

I’ve seen John Kasich five times now, including tonight. He campaigns as a moderate conservative who can work with Democrats across the aisle, as a governor who knows how to balance budgets. He’s occasionally said some hawkish stuff, but essentially he is the only other non-neoconservative remaining in the GOP race. I’ve written before that I believe his endorsement of James Baker as a model secretary of state is significant as an indication of his foreign policy inclinations, realist and not neocon.

But the unexpected thing at a Kasich event is his sweet side, which seems so unlike the other Republicans. In his celebration of his second-place finish, he used his time before the national cameras to describe moments from his town hall meeting which sounded evangelical, though without any references to scripture. He recalled people in pain who came to him during a town hall, suffering from illness or grief, and how he responded, with words, or embraces. It might easily have seemed treacly, and was unusual for an election night speech. But with Kasich it seemed authentic, and it worked.

The Kasich party was full of Ohioans, cheerful volunteers who came out to canvass over the weekend. When the TV showed a graphic saying that Kasich had beaten Trump (by one percent) among late deciding voters, the Ohioans started chanting “ground game, ground game.” While waiting for the candidate to appear (waiting actually for Clinton and Sanders to finish their very long speeches), the Ohioans chanted “Unite Not Divide,” perhaps the least catchy political slogan ever. I don’t believe any serious analysis of what Kasich has in terms of money and organization in the ensuing states has been published, and it is assumed that Jeb and Rubio have infinite amounts of establishment or neocon money to continue.

But I have little doubt that Kasich is superior to those two as a politician, in terms of judgement, experience, and intelligence. I suspect that will emerge in the weeks and months to come.

Scott McConnell, a founding editor of The American Conservative, reports on the 2016 campaign from New Hampshire.

Hide 43 comments

43 Responses to Kasich Earns His Ticket

There are liberals who have never been keen on open borders. While they may not be eager for mass deportations, especially of children, and want more process around that than conservatives would (and perhaps also wonder how feasible and cost-effective it is – in other words, is it really conservative), they’ve long worried about the corrosive effect on unions and the employment prospects of black and native Americans. There’s considerable middle ground to be had on immigration but being avoided at the behest of ideologues and our corporate masters.

Defeat ISIS…
CHALLENGE REGIONAL AGGRESSION…
Stand Up to Russia…
Counter China…
RENEW OUR MILITARY: As America’s commitment to security leadership has withered, our military has been neglected. ***Sheesh***
REBUILD THE U.S. MILITARY FROM THE GROUND UP…

The body of the text below those headers is full bore Global Cop Neocon theology.

BTW, Chris Preble of Cato has written incisively about the illusion of “gutted” defense spending:

Please read those and then step back and ask yourself if any of the establishment Republicans have demonstrated an ounce of coherence and circumspection on foreign policy, including how their envisioned Global Cop shenanigans would be paid for.

I hope you’re right and that GOP voters will give him a chance. While I disagree with a lot of what Kasich has to say, he strikes me as a decent human being who’d govern pragmatically. In short, a far cry from the rest of the GOP candidates. I’d like to see him get some traction.

My mother raised me to be a Christian gentleman. She would roll over in her grave if I voted for a crude Yankee like Trump, and I don’t want to do that. But I can’t vote for someone who won’t stop immigration, who refuses to deport the illegals, and who refuses to get our soldiers out of the Middle East and defend American borders, American interests and American jobs instead of foreign ones.

Maybe Kasich will come around. Maybe he won’t. It’s up to him, really. The corrupting power of the donors, the GOP establishment, and other entrenched interests must be very great indeed to make so many Republican candidates refuse to say and do what voters so obviously want.

BTW, John Kasich using the now standard *M.O. of Politico-Cronies in Washington, transitioned to the “private sector” as a “managing director” for Lehman Brothers even though he had no training (BA Political Science) or experience in finance.

A job that paid him $615,000 in 2008 as Lehman was imploding.

*Joining other revolving door Beltway notables such as Rahm Emanuel, Jack Lew and Judd Gregg who were handed jobs and shoveled money by investment banks for just showing up.

Kasich could well be the salvation of the the GOP leadership and of Conservatism, Inc. When he was a congressman, he opposed open-borders and had a NumbersUSA grade of A+. Once he decided to run for president, he decided that enforcing our nation’s immigration laws is mean-spirited. If Rubio and Bush disappear after the March primaries, we can see some serious Wall Street cash flowing to Kasich.

Here are just a few of the reasons why Kasich is such an acceptable candidate for the Republican establishment and why — for Middle Americans – Kasich is such a disaster:

(1) He spent over five years as a managing director for Lehman Brothers before it collapsed in 2008. He said he had no “regrets.”

(2) During a speech at the New America Conference in April 2015, Kasich said the Dodd-Frank Act “went overboard” in its regulations. “I don’t think you can fix all this like Elizabeth Warren says, by demonizing the rich or saying we can just impose all these regulations,” Kasich said.

(3) During the sixth Republican presidential primary debate, on January 14, 2016, John Kasich discussed his support from trade: “I’m a free trader. I support NAFTA and TPP.”

(4) Illegal immigrants: “For the 11 million that are here, in my view if they’ve been law abiding they should pay a penalty. They broke the law. They should not have a path to citizenship but a path to legalization and they should assimilate.”

(5) On October 2, 2015, Kasich advocated for the creation of no-fly zones in Syria.

(6) During a campaign stop in New Hampshire on July 22, 2015, John Kasich argued the United States should put troops on the ground to fight ISIS.

(7) In March 2014, during a question-and-answer session at a Republican Jewish Coalition meeting, Kasich said “the United States should maintain a military presence in Afghanistan and that both Russia and Iran should face more sanctions.”

(8) At the fifth GOP primary debate on December 15, 2015, Kasich said of Bashar Al-Assad: “I don’t understand this thing about Assad. He has to go. Assad is aligned with Iran and Russia. The one thing we want to prevent is we want to prevent Iran being able to extend a Shia crescent all across the Middle East. Assad has got to go.”

Why is it that the conservative journalists are so focused on the losers in the two Republican primaries so far? Last week, after Iowa, there were many journalists praising a 3rd place Rubio finish. This week, it is 2nd place Kasich that will be praised.

This is most likely journalism that is being paid for by the Republican establishement.

He was decidedly blunt, plain-spoken and seemed to actually have knowledge and experience, and was not in any way a crazy person, or a wingnut, or indulging in Obama birtherism, or bringing up how Mexicans are all rapists who have giant calves, or implying that he is The Anointed One.

As the non-Bush normal guy, Kasich should be a real contender for the nomination – if this were a normal election. I’m a Democrat and even I thought he might actually be nominally acceptable.

There is still time for the GOP to shake off the delirium that 8 years of facing the Kenyan Usurper has brought, and for the GOP to come to its senses. But then again, the next stop, South Carolina is usually a wild spot, so we’ll see – Could be very good to Ted Cruz (The Anointed One).

I caught that fear and loathing on the part of Maddow, too. She really strained to deny that the surges in support for Sanders and for Trump could be in any way related. Talk baout seeing the world with blinders on.

1. He has pragmatic policies that are inclusive and offer the hope of prosperity to many as opposed to being tailored to just a few (be it the top 1% or the bottom 47% :))!

2. He actually knows how to govern. For some reason, in this reality TV culture, some people forget that this is a unique job for which a lengthy resume is needed. Could anyone imagine Trump keeping Europeans as our allies (see his interview today, where he insults Angela Merkel), or Cruz or Rubio, who have never run anything, actually manage a 1 Trillion corporation, that is the US today?

The only question is whether the voters will wake up in time, or will they hand this one over to Hillary Clinton, on a platter!

Having not seen Rachel Maddow, I think is obvious Trump and Sanders are much closer than people will concede. In NH, a lot of people were trying to decide between the 2 of them, apparently.

But it’s not because they are non-establishment that they are alike. This whole line of reasoning is superficial and sort of stupid.

It’s the policies they proscribe that really make them similar. Each is promising, in their way, to put a stop to the screwing that the average American has been getting for about 30 years or so. This has been the period of domination of our politics by the GOP, who have largely succeeded in cutting taxes for the wealthy, sending the bill to John Q Public, and getting quite a few Democrats to go along for the ride.

In this way, the Donald is really something of a liberal; he’s not even really a republican as many have observed. And the GOP would really be crazy to nominate him. If he followed through he might break the GOP into pieces. Plus with his background, who knows what he’d really do anyway?

Where Sanders is not like Trump is that he’s just a solid liberal and is not really hugely out of step with the what the Democrat party purports to stand for. Hillary is in trouble because she is a stand-in for the Democrat party that caves to the GOP all the time, and picks up a paycheck from the big money folks for good measure.

Now that Kasich is in the spotlight as the new Republican establishment candidate this week, it points to a new problem. The favored establisment candidate keeps changing after every week. Notice how before the Iowa caucus, that Jeb was the establishment candidate, then it switched to Rubio, and this week it is Kasich. Maybe next week it switches back to Jeb?

The Republican establishment has too many candidates that are splitting up their time and energy. If you only had 3 candidates in this race: Kasich, Trump, and Cruz, then most likely Kasich would have won NH. But there are too many candidates and the votes get splintered and energy and time is wasted.

Alan Vanneman says: “‘re-establish control of our borders” Please. In the good old days, we had zero interest in ‘controlling our borders’. ‘Xenophobic nativism she labels it.’ Sounds like Rachel got it right, for once.”

The Chinese Exclusion Act. The Japanese Exclusion Act. The Immigration Act of 1924. The Know Nothings. Eugenics. The Daughters of the American Revolution and post-Holocaust Jewish refugees.

I mention the above not because I disagree with you and Ms. Maddow about xenophobic nativism but just because you are completely wrong about the history of “controlling our borders.”

By the way, I think Liam is right that there is some common ground on immigration reform between liberals, progressives and the left and the not-so-far right.

Scott, I haven’t voted for a Republican for national office since I worked on Richard Lugar’s campaign staff in 1974. Like many of my generation in the post-Vietnam and Watergate era, I moved far to the left and am now in baby steps drifting back towards the middle. I would NEVER vote for a Trump, Cruz or Rubio, but I like John Kasich. He’s a more genuinely compassionate conservative than George W. Bush ever was (without the neo-con trimmings), and he’s proven he can work across the aisle. He shares my values on fiscal conservatism, and while I part ways with him on some social issues, he seems like a human being, in contrast to his more unhinged and ideologically rigid GOP opponents. He’s a conservative I might vote for at best and at least respect at worst. So I hope he is the GOP nominee, because if he isn’t, not many independents will vote Republican in November.

I’ve reviewed the comments on both this thread and Scott’s earlier piece on Kasich and I have to say, I am less impressed the more I read about him. Ah, James Baker, the Secretary of State for both the invasion of Panama and the first Iraq War – best not be a former CIA asset on his watch, fellas! – and the beginnings of U.S. triumphalism in Eastern Europe, including sowing the seeds of the break-up of Yugoslavia and all that wrought.

Foreign policy realism may be smarter imperialism, but it is still imperialism and still fully capable of supporting and perpetuating butchery and slaughter. Feh!

Methinks that Kasich is running to be whoever gets nominated VP. Bottom whether it’s Trump or Cruz, they’re going to need somebody that got some executive experience and can work with both sides of Congress.

I hope very, very, very much that Kasich gets the nomination, and the White House. I can’t think of a single person in American politics more currently suited for the presidency. Kasich has budget chops, foreign policy common sense, knows how to manage actual government institutions and is a real conservative rather than a right wing reactionary. He’s decent, nice without being a softie. In terms of experience and temperament we couldn’t do better.

Yea, I don’t mean to single you out negatively, but I think your criteria are a good example of how we’re not making these decisions seriously.

First of all, I don’t care if he worked for Lehmann Brothers. Bankers aren’t evil.

I have to say I do disagree with Kasich on trade issues. But honestly, its the responsibility of Republicans to elect Senators that are against free trade if they’re opposed to it. Presidents have some responsibility in bringing treaties to the Senate, but ultimately, its the Senate’s responsibility to approve or turn down those treaties.

I don’t agree with him on foreign policy issues. But as long as he commits to the idea that he needs a Declaration of War from Congress, once again, the responsibility goes back to Congress.

The questions for me about Kasich, like most other candidates include, but are not limited to,
– What type of justices will he nominate?
– Does he recognize the limits of his Constitutional authority?
– Will he work well with Congress?
– Will he use his leadership and bully pulpit to get things accomplished?

I’m not 100% on Kasich, but I think he’s closer to answering those questions right than other candidates. We do need to grill all the candidates on those types of questions, though.

I am worried that, with the modern media how it is, people will ignore all of these concerns, and that will buffet the need for a candidate who has the right trade views, the right foreign policy views. I know for sure Trump wouldn’t bring free trade treaties to the Senate, I know for sure Paul wouldn’t go to war.

But we need to really reset how we talk about how things do and *should* happen in Washington.

Kasich’s biggest mountain to climb is getting the base behind him. In the primaries, and in the general if he could win the primaries, and while President, if he could win the job.

Its something he can’t really shrug off. Its important to get your base behind you through that whole process. A candidate without the base behind him is like a house without a foundation. Its not going to work.

So we don’t agree with any of Kasich’s positions, many of which are held by McConnell and Boehner (now Ryan), who hate the base, but we should vote for him because…

Sorry, No! Kasich took Obamacare and busted the federal budget. He recovered jobs because the federal taxpayers bailed out the auto industry. He so called “balanced the budget” in the 1990s by gutting the military and the VA. I remember it very well – my husband was active duty and they were slashing soldiers by the tens of thousands while Kasich took his bow. Of course, Osama Bin Laden grew out of his “peace dividend” and we were unprepared after 9/11 (despite the embassy bombings and the USS Cole).

If Kasich is the McCain/Romney/force fed candidate this cycle, you will lose the base drastically.

Unless there is a cosmic shift in South Carolina between now and the primary, John Kasich will finish dead last, and probably be out. He is currently polling at (RCP average) 2%, compared to 8.7% for Carson, the next lowest candidate still in the race.

At year-end FEC filings, Kasich had by far the least cash of any campaign still running, so unless he has a big donor payday from the New Hampshire results, he might not make it to South Carolina.

I was very glad to see Kasich do so well in New Hapmshire. As far as I’m concerned, he’s the “adult in the room” among all of the remaining Republicans. I think he’d make the best president. If either Trump or Cruz is the nominee, the next president will be Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s problem isn’t so much what he says … most of the time anyway … it’s how he conducts himself. He has the emotional maturity of a 10-year old. His Twitter rants and childish feuds with the likes of Megan Kelly belong in junior high school, not in the Oval Office. If he were to be elected president, he would find very quickly that taking to Twitter to hurl childish insults at anyone who doesn’t kiss your a** won’t get him very far. Within three months, he’d have everyone in Washington so pissed off at him that nothing would get done for four years. The country can’t afford that.

I am a lifelong registered Republican and I really hope that I have the chance to vote for John Kasich in November. But if the GOP is collectively stupid enough to nominate either Trump or Cruz, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton, as will millions of other moderately conservative voters like me.

Kasich’s comments on foreign policy are very inconsistent. He says that Assad “has to go.” He worries about defense spending being gutted, but then again he bragged about holding the line against excessive defense spending in a town hall meeting. He would be willing to use ground troops against ISIS, but only as part of a coalition. (This actually isn’t too far from Bernie Sander’s position.) He has said that we should keep Iran accountable within the Iran deal, which is promising. But then he’s also said that we should restore sanctions on Iran, which clearly contradicts that view.

But Kasich hasn’t made foreign policy a key part of his message. I read an article in the Weekly Standard about a Kasich town hall meeting where they frustratedly noted that Kasich hadn mentioned national security issues hardly at all. It’s clear that Kasich isn’t all that interested in foreign affairs and is much more comfortable talking about domestic issues. That’s probably why his position is so inconsistent and hard to pin down. This isn’t necessarily a good thing; he might leave foreign affairs up to his advisers and if those advisers are neocons that could be a problem. But it at least shows that he’s not a cowboy, eager to dash off to foreign adventures.

For that reason I think I would feel safer under a Kasich presidency then a Trump one. I know Trump says a lot of things that realists want to hear. But ultimately Trump is not consistent on foreign policy and his comments on foreign leaders reveal a belligerence and a contempt for diplomacy. I’m not quite worried that I’ll “wake up one day to find out that he’s nuked Denmark.” But I think Trump is too unpredictable, and I do think the confidence some people place in him to keep us out of war is badly misplaced.

I was hoping and praying all day yesterday that reason would prevail and either Bush or Kasich would finish second. I am glad to see your article highlighting the strengths of John Kasich, in a conservative publication. The media has handed us Trump on a golden platter and the RNC has proven to be too weak to stop him. If the media actually cares about this country, rather than their ratings, they should start flooding the screens with one-on-one interviews with the candidates by tough, knowledgeable, fact-checking journalists who can really challenge these guys to show their true colors. Trump will implode from anger, Rubio will rot in his endless rhetoric, Carson is not worth mentioning, and Cruz will be exposed for the charlatan he is. Only Kasich or Bush would win over the independents and democrats who either hate Hillary or think Bernie is too left. But no, I am watching Billo suck up to Trump right this minute. Disgusting.

Horrifying. On personality, one is an unapologetic egomaniac. The other has been too busy being a leftist cardboard cutout to develop a personality beyond waving his hands about. As far as policy is concerned, God help us.

Kasich, the Wall Street bankster, who’s considered moderate for staying that Establishment course, which has paid off for him but none of us.

During the Soviet collapse, the ancien regime of status quo communist functionaries were considered bu our own experts as “moderate” or even “conservative.” There is a point where what is merely become reactionary, defensive and reflexive, masquerades as conservative. This self interest misinforms the acceptable Washington insider neolib/neocon consensus, with its version of a political no-fly list.

Let me make one last point of about “Bankers are not evil.” (redfish) and Fran, Kurt and myself who noted Kasich’s very profitable association with “Banksterism”.

Thirty years ago, financial services contributed about 10% of U.S. corporate profits. Today the figure is close to 30%, although it peaked at 40% in 2000.

Think about that. The original purpose of finance is to provide funding for productive economic activity. E.g., banks made loans to businesses who made stuff and provided services that consumers want.

With explosion of the secondary and tertiary derivatives markets finance become a profit center in and of itself. Most transactions have nothing to do with supporting the flows of productive capital. Wall Street essentially became Las Vegas on the Hudson.

All of that money that between and to the Banksters is an implicit tax on all of us. Each ETF transaction is a side bet. And hedge fund fees are “vig” payments to the house. Each turn of the derivatives crank is a little slice of economic productivity excised from the real economy.

And the bizarro-world of electron churn is where Kasisch lived fat and happy for 7 years. Just showing up and getting his piece. Think about it, Kasich was paid over $500,000 a year for producing exactly what?

Elect Kasich and people will still asking that question when he leaves the Oval Office with an economy in ruins.

I’m sorry, I don’t want a folksy governor who’s been cronied-up with the hyper-corrupt financial services sector as president. (Especially if he’s a Neocon.)

Bankers are not evil, but the pathological system they parasitically thrive in is for sure.

In the event the Republican convention is brokered (a distinct possibility at this point), Kasich would conceivably serve as a compromise candidate– will subsequently be hanged, drawn and quartered by La Madame’s acolytes in Big Media.

“Think about that. The original purpose of finance is to provide funding for productive economic activity. E.g., banks made loans to businesses who made stuff and provided services that consumers want”

—————–

I read somewhere, don’t remember, a business persons was quoted as saying wall street is not about capital formation any more, NOW IT IS ABOUT CAPITAL EXTRACTION. As in, the wealthy use Wall Street to extract capital from the economy.

I used to consult for AT&T, and it would amaze me how much their day to day decision making was more or less in fear of Wall Street. A flagship company at the time, and they were afraid that one or two bad quarters and they’d be on the block being sliced up like carrion by some M&A / LBO team. Naturally long term investment was very difficult – much easier to cut the payroll and/or off shore something or other.

Being not only an Ohioan, but also working on the inside of State Government, Kasich is a wolf in sheeps clothing. This nice guy persona that he is putting on in NH is nothing but an act. I would argue that he is a bigger bully than Trump could ever imagine to be.

He expanded Medicaid.

Forced common core down our throats.

Slashed local government funding to the point where local governments are imposing property tax levies on its citizens that are way more expensive than the small tax cuts in his budget.

Invokes the name of God to those who oppose his wealth redistribution policies.

He created “JobsOhio” which is a quasi-governmental corporation, exempt from public records law that has been fast tracking projects with taxpayers money that do violence to localism, and the zoning priorities of local communities.